I examine the claim that utilitarianism treats actions as right in cases where common sense holds them to be unjust. To this end I have described the outlines of the doctrine as defined by John Stuart Mill and presented the objection against it. I will show that utilitarians could refute the objection by showing that commonsense morality itself allows for the increase of evil. Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine that sees "utility" in benefit, which is described as "pleasure". It is based on the “greatest happiness” principle, according to which the best action is the one that maximizes happiness. By 'happiness' we mean obtaining pleasure and avoiding suffering. According to the doctrine, a person should aim in his actions at the greatest possible happiness, both in the size of the benefit itself and in the number of people who benefit from it. Furthermore, the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term ones. Since “every action has an end in mind,” actions and their consequences are inseparable. The doctrine holds that the consequences of actions outweigh the nature of the actions. Therefore, no action is considered wrong according to utilitarianism as long as it maximizes happiness, even if the action is morally wrong in its nature. The doctrine appears to encourage actions that contradict common-sense morality, the set of moral rules accepted by society. This impression raises an objection to utilitarianism by saying that it promotes unjust and evil actions. For example, imagine the case of a surgeon who has five patients who can only be saved by transplanting certain organs and another patient with healthy organs. According to utilitarianism, sacrificing health... middle of paper... from right actions. The response defends utilitarianism by explaining that the doctrine values ​​consequences, not actions. The weakness of the response lies in confirming that the doctrine allows for unjust acts, the point against which the objection was raised. However, it shows that even if utilitarianism permits injustice, it is for the legitimate purpose of minimizing evil. Utilitarians argue that human actions should produce the greatest possible benefit. According to the objection to the doctrine, the maximum benefit is obtained at the expense of justice. The objection is rebutted by stating that utilitarianism promotes greater happiness, not unjust actions. The latter may be necessary to obtain consequences whose benefit outweighs both the injustice of the actions and the benefit arising from the consequences that could be obtained by following common-sense morality.